Re: Joy of this, Joy of that

On 12/8/24 7:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 08/12/2024 05:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 12/7/24 6:59 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 06/12/2024 17:12, D wrote:

If you postulate something which can never be known, it is kind of useless. It goes the same way as god, or a postulated first mover etc.

>
And yet that is what people do all the time. In fact it is the necessary foundation of thinking.
>
All metaphysics - and we all use it, whether we understand that we do or not -  is to assume the framework for our understanding, and use it not because it is demonstrably true, but because it *works* for us.
>
We don't  and can't *know* that time and space exist - at least in the way we understand them, but they do *work* for us, the way we understand them.

>
   Careful ... the "luminiferous aether" WORKED - at least
   with the existing physics  :-)
>

Exactly. That was Karl Poppers point. We don't discover the  laws, we actually make them up, and if they work, we use them.
 Mickelson-Morley rather gave the lie to a physically meaningful aether, so it was dropped.

   We stick with what we "know" until it's impossible to
   ignore the little flaws. Even then, some Bigger Picture
   had better be ready. Einstein/Planck/Bohr provided that
   Bigger Picture at just the right time - but it COULD have
   been a 100 year gap.
   Now ? Another 100 years ???
   Of note ... the validity of said models seems particularly
   vulnerable to the INSTRUMENTATION that can be brought to
   bear. Newton seemed fine - until telescopes were good
   enough to notice that tiny little problem with Mercury.
   Seems like every time the instruments have a 10x improvement
   we have to create a whole new physics/cosmology.
   Until the next 10x improvement ......
   The Webb scope is finding big organized galaxies way
   out/back that weren't supposed to BE there. Now we'll
   need a new cosmology/timeline.
   But ... in a 4-D bubble, if you look FAR enough you
   will start seeing yer own ass. Are these 'ancient
   galaxies' real, or just the ass-end view of nearer
   galaxies ?   :-)

#
 

   I suspect 'dark matter' will occupy a similar position.
>

:-) Probably